I think that before your anger subsides, a letter to the Walt Disney Company might be in order.

Their contract employee - Whoppie Goldberg - has distinguished herself in this whole affair as perhaps the worst person in the world next to Polanski himself with her suggestion that what he did was not "rape."

For myself, I will never again allow my daughter to step foot on a property owned by the Walt Disney company or any of its subsidiaries unless and until they fire the reprehensible Whoppie Goldberg.

Recapping Ms. Goldberg's comments, she said, and I quote:

“I know it wasn’t rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”

Keep in mind that Polanski drugged the child before raping her.

Goldberg was trying to pin down the exact crime Polanski was charged with but she still seems to be suggesting that there are different levels of forcing someone to have sexual intercourse without their consent, that some rapes are better than others. What a dangerous and foolish thing to say.

Goldberg also said: “We’re a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds in the rest of Europe… not everybody agrees with the way we see things…”

Ms. Goldberg does not reflect well on the Walt Disney company, and for someone who holds these beliefs about child rape, I believe she is incompatible as an employee of a company designed and marketed almost solely to children.

I know that a comment on an article is not really proof, but I've read a few similar to this, and it seems that a reporter should follow up on this. Here's the comment in response to this article.

There is no cultural divide. It’s a real shame for you (the journalist, Robert Marquand) to create such drama. Are you actually here in France? Do you read french? Do you speak french?

Well, I am here in Paris and a simple google using google.fr will show you that the FRENCH are outraged by their politicians and artists and wanna-be philosopher Bernard Henri Levy support of POLANSKI. These mis-guided people do not represent “the FRENCH”. Shame on you for writing such an untruthful ’story’.

Hey, that's kind of like you backing down, Althouse, after being bitch slapped for your idiotic original post that was titled as if Polanski was being prosecuted for having sex with a 45-year-old woman.

Thanks in part to the EU, and probably the internet, European elites aren't able to tell the people what to do as much as they use to. Europe is in for a see of change in the coming years. The people are beginning to see past the bullshit of the governing and elite social class in Europe. Nationalists groups are on the rise and polls show Europeans would support executing murderers, despite not a single EU country having a death penalty. Go Europe, go!

"The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join."

To read that, you'd think the reason for the French govt reversal was that a few members of the elite refused to go along- that that was the backlash. The rest of the article supports that idea.

But what actually happened was that French politicians and cineastes (!) were shocked when the French rabble refused to go along with the idea that the elite should meet a different standard of justice. The moviemakers probably don't care, but those pols have elections to worry about. 70% in favor of extradition I hear.

I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I still am when I read these news items dispatched from alternate dimensions. On the other hand, I guess it wouldn't be in the BBC's interest to report on people overruling the geniuses in media.

Well, INSERT TOPIC HERE the instant collapse and surrender of the French government when faced with a handful of nonogenarian film makers is entirely to be expected though it MAY be problematic, Yet ANN thinks BusHITLER and CheneySATAN should be slathered in butter by geishas until verily they are like unto FAJITAS for THE WORST TORTURE AND WAR CRIMES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE. And yes, those War Crimes, for they are guilty, are clearly WORSE than the HOLOCAUST and the DESTRUCTION of ALDERAAN and the United States is party to it all.

• Does the fact she entered Jack Nicholson's home because a famous movie director asked for a photo shoot, and gives her -a minor- alcohol and a quaalude, does that equal consent for sex?• Did the 13 year old girl lead him on? • Didn't she say 'no' forcefully or often enough?• Was her faked asthma attack clearly a "yes"?• Begging repeatedly to go home, is that more evidence of agreement than refusal?• Crying afterward, and telling her parents immediately, does that mean 'she wanted it'?

It would be interesting to hear what a real rape rape is, because all these years I thought it was something else, and it appears I have taught my sons the wrong lessons.

How would Whoopi, child advocate, advise my sons and other young men on the ethics of sex with 13 year old girls? Plus, is there an upper age limit, or is 44 OK? 54?

Penny...The act of issuing a Judgement that enforces a law, instead of one saying law does not apply for some reason, does in fact reassure people that they are living in a safe place. The gift of Justice is as much an assurance that bad conduct will be punished as it is that good conduct will not be punished. So, yes people rejoice when they see the law enforced. The attorney's job is to wrestle with the law and get away with the best outcome we can, and it is an adversarial system. But attorneys also get to see up close and personal that Judgements settling matters by law are a benefit to all involved.

Did anyone notice that the BBC article never mentions that HE PLEAD GUILTY! The fact that he plead guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (drugged) is often not mentioned. He admits he did it. He just never paid the price for it because he ran.

I think finally the French government has seen that it's best to support the enformcement of law and justice in cooperation with a western partner. We can rip on France and France can and will rip on us here stateside for hours on end, but on the issue of law and evading justice, I would hope that a western nation like France would demonstrate common sense. It may have taken a little bit, but they seem to have come to their senses.

-----

Word Verification: vingence. No, I disagree. This is about justice, not vingence ;-)

Worse than that. It's unconsciounable. I don't think they realize it, but they're not being his friend. They're being his enabler. They're not merely allowing, but encouraging self destructive behavior on his part and are allowing him to evade his burden of responsibility on this issue.

--------

Look, I differ from a whole lot of people on this in that I don't want to see the book get thrown at Polanski. Like I said in one of the past threads, if the prosecutor and judge simply allow time served and some sort of fine for the original rape case itself, I'm fine with it if the victim, prosecutor, and judge are fine with it too. Having those three parties agree to a decision is indeed a perfectly fine conclusion that preserves justice; I'm satisfied in whatever comes out as long as it's a fair judgement reached through the judicial process. But, he still needs to answer for the years he spent fleeing justice. And both violations need to be addressed in a court of law, not through some damn petition signed by the top 10% of wealth and celebrity, nor through dead tree rags and internet columns, but in front of a judge. I care that the process is followed correctly and properly, whatever the outcome. And the cause of that process not moving forward is not the US government or societal attitudes towards sexual relations with minors. It's Polanski's refusal to face a judge. Period. End of story.

Once he faces the music, then we can go back to talking about what good he's done for art and motion pictures. But until then, his films - great and entertaining, I readily testify - are irrelevant to the situation. So's the years he spent in exile. And so's any other excuse that can be delivered. The only point of contention is whether he faces a judge or not. And only from that point is any debate reasonable. Everything else, from the petition to "Free Polanski" to complaints about him being arrested "like a common terrorist" (I had no idea we sent US Rangers after him (*rolls eyes*)) are evasions and off topic. The only reasonable discussion is his appearance in front of a judge. And that's where the story regarding him begins and ends.

The reason we can’t sentence Polanski to time already served and a fine is because he refused to come back and face the music. For that he deserves some time in jail. I don’t much care how much time it is, honestly. 1 month, 2 years, whatever… What I really, really don’t want is for this jerk to start running around America making movies and being on talk shows without having paid any price. I would be ok with permanent exile and a fine, maybe. I am not ok with him coming back here without paying for his crime in some way.

What Tibore said at 9:09. I am confused as to what should be the proper punishment of Polanski, but there can be no doubt that he deserves punishment. The fact that so many of my artistic betters feel otherwise is alienating. Milosevic did not commit a genocide genocide. We should not allow ourselves to get caught up in judgemental behavior about what was, after all, a time honored Balkan custom. Our refusal to see the delicate nuances of genocide speaks more to our puritanism than to the evil of the Balkans.

As for Whoopi, I can't help but wonder how much of what she says is just her effort to position herself to stay in the good graces of and otherwise suck up to all those heavy-hitter players out there (Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, et al) who she believes she will need in the future. In other words, maybe it's some self-serving professional survival going on.

"[Hollywood Bigshot] says a man who drugs and rapes a 13-year-old should go free."

I think everyone who signed the petition that says "we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski" can be said to have endorsed that proposition . . . at least under U.S. legal standards for libel.